SFS Post 3! pg 57 LDS historians have not left the church

[_Aristotle Smith]

For the record, I don't really believe what Mike Quinn says about his continuing to have a testimony. I think he says that as a way of attempting to claw back a little "street cred" with Mormons, since Mormonism is his gig, and since Mormons themselves represent by far the largest potential group of people who would care about his works.

Why do I not believe his professed testimony? Simply that what he writes so clearly lays down the man-made nature of the church, that if he writes stuff so clearly that anyone who reads his books "gets it" and sees his point (whether they agree with it or not), how could he himself fail to "get" his own writing?

For the record, I don't really believe what Sethbag says about his continuing to lack a testimony. I think he says that as a way of attempting to claw back a little "street cred" with ex-Mormons, since ex-Mormonism is his gig, and since ex-Mormons themselves represent by far the largest group of people who would care about his online writing.

Wow, that was easy!

My point is that I don't recommend assigning motives and beliefs to others, it's better to take their word for what they believe. In any event Quinn's testimony is ambiguous. He seems to claim a testimony of the restoration but has reservations about how much authority remains in the church. For example he's fairly clear that he thinks his excommunication won't mean anything in the hereafter. He tends to word things in ways so that neither side can claim him as one of their own. Why he does that is anyone's guess.

[_cinepro]

Rambo, noted skeptic Michael Shermer has thought about this very topic, and published some of his conclusions. I think his theory applies to LDS "smart people" especially well.

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?

“When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service!”

—John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds , 1852

-----------------------------------------
An Easy Answer to a Hard Question

It is a given assumption in the skeptical movement—elevated to a maxim really—that intelligence and education serve as an impenetrable prophylactic against the flim flam that we assume the unintelligent and uneducated masses swallow with credulity. Indeed, at the Skeptics Society we invest considerable resources in educational materials distributed to schools and the media under the assumption that this will make a difference in our struggle against pseudoscience and superstition. These efforts do make a difference, particularly for those who are aware of the phenomena we study but have not heard a scientific explanation for them. But are the cognitive elite protected against the nonsense that passes for sense in our culture? Is flapdoodle the fodder for only fools? The answer is no. The question is why?

For those of us in the business of debunking bunk and explaining the unexplained, this is what I call the Hard Question: why do smart people believe weird things? My Easy Answer will seem somewhat paradoxical at first:

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

That is to say, most of us most of the time come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning (that, presumably, smart people are better at employing). Rather, such variables as genetic predispositions, parental predilections, sibling influences, peer pressures, educational experiences, and life impressions all shape the personality preferences and emotional inclinations that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to make certain belief choices. Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming.

All of us do this, of course, but smart people are better at it through both talent and training. Some beliefs really are more logical, rational, and supported by the evidence than others, of course, but it is not my purpose here to judge the validity of beliefs; rather, I am interested in the question of how we came to them in the first place, and how we hold on to them in the face of either no evidence or contradictory evidence.

[_truth dancer]

Another great book on the topic:

The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer

~td~

[_MAsh]

Rambo, this was a paraphrase of was LDS historian Davis Bitton said his is FAIR presentation (see note 17 & you can read the entire text on the FAIR website).

The point of this was that while some critics have claimed that studying LDS history (i.e., learning the "truth") causes a testimony to collapse, this has typically been the case among those who have studied LDS history the most.

And keep in mind that I wasn't making a definitive statement that no LDS historian has ever left, but that they don't typically leave and they certainly don't leave in mass exodus (which some critics' logic would imply if studying LDS history was the death nail for LDS testimony).

While I skimmed through most of this thread (not reading most of the posts) I noticed Cinepro's comments about Michael Shermer's book. I like much of what Michael writes (and he's got a great first name!) but this can also backfire and point to those "smart people" who believe in atheism as opposed to who accept the supernatural.

Mike Ash

[_beastie]

Given the emotional, social, cultural, and especially familial impact that leaving Mormonism entails, it's amazing that anyone leaves.

I would imagine that people whose careers or vocations are enmeshed within Mormonism have an even higher investment. I'm not saying that they pretend to believe - I am saying their need to believe may be even greater, hence, their propensity to retain faith greater.

[_The Dude]

I like much of what Michael writes (and he's got a great first name!) but this can also backfire and point to those "smart people" who believe in atheism as opposed to who accept the supernatural.

That doesn't even make sense, Mike. It sounds like you are trying to say whether you believe in the supernatural or don't believe, it's just the same. Calling something weird is totally relative and ultimately meaningless. For you, it may as well be unbelievers who believe weird things because they don' believe. Huh?

I don't believe in atheism, per se, I'm just not convinced there is a God. Am I weird for not being convinced by the evidence I've seen?

[_cinepro]

That doesn't even make sense, Mike. It sounds like you are trying to say whether you believe in the supernatural or don't believe, it's just the same. Calling something weird is totally relative and ultimately meaningless. For you, it may as well be unbelievers who believe weird things because they don' believe. Huh?

I don't believe in atheism, per se, I'm just not convinced there is a God. Am I weird for not being convinced by the evidence I've seen?

I suppose an argument could be made that it's possible to indoctrinate a child with atheism just as it's possible to indoctrinate a child with theism.

I'm just not sure that the result of "investigating" atheist claims without adherence to prior belief will result in theistic beliefs.

[_The Dude]

I suppose an argument could be made that it's possible to indoctrinate a child with atheism just as it's possible to indoctrinate a child with theism.

I'm just not sure that the result of "investigating" atheist claims without adherence to prior belief will result in theistic beliefs.

But the Shermer quote isn't about children being indoctrinated in beliefs, weird or otherwise. It's about smart people who still believe weird things.

And no, I also don't think investigating atheist claims... being skeptical about skepticism... is necessarily going to lead you to believe in God. It could lead you to believe you need someone else to make your decisions, but then you would naturally be skeptical about whoever that was and whatever they told you, so then what? Eventually you would say "screw it" and just go bowling. I suppose.

[_krose]

I think I would be more impressed by a list of non-believing historians who became believers and joined the LDS church as a result of studying its history.

Similarly, a list of egyptologists and mesoamerican archaeologists who joined as a result of their research would be impressive.

[_The Dude]

I think I would be more impressed by a list of non-believing historians who became believers and joined the LDS church as a result of studying its history.

Similarly, a list of egyptologists and mesoamerican archaeologists who joined as a result of their research would be impressive.

They have to be egyptologists, mesoamerican archaeologists, and molecular biologists who aren't affiliated with a Church-owned institution at the time of their conversion, since that is clearly a conflict of interest.